No. 12-307 In The Supreme Court of the United States ———————————————————————— UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER, v. EDITH SCHLAIN WINDSOR, et al., RESPONDENTS. _____________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ————————— BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION AND AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC., AMERICAN ETHICAL UNION, THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY, MILITARY ASSOCIATION OF ATHEISTS AND FREETHINKERS, SECULAR COALITION FOR AMERICA, SECULAR STUDENT ALLIANCE, AND SOCIETY FOR HUMANISTIC JUDAISM, IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS ADDRESSING THE MERITS ————————— WILLIAM J. BURGESS ELIZABETH L. HILEMAN MONICA MILLER Counsel of Record Appignani Humanist Hileman & Williams, P.C. Legal Center 7979 Old Georgetown Rd. American Humanist Bethesda, Md. 20814 Association (301) 652-1448 1777 T Street, N.W. [email protected] Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 238-9088 [email protected] Attorneys for Amici Curiae ══════════════════════════════════ TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................... iii INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ................................ 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................... 3 ARGUMENT .................................................................. 5 I. DOMA VIOLATES EQUAL PROTECTION BECAUSE IT REFLECTS AND PERPETUATES PREJUDICE TOWARDS A PROTECTED CLASS AND IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY ANY VALID GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST ................. 5 A. Laws such as DOMA, which divide people on the basis of sexual orientation, draw a suspect legislative classification requiring heightened judicial scrutiny .......................... 6 B. There is no legitimate governmental interest, compelling or otherwise, that can justify denying federal recognition of the marriages of gays and lesbians .............. ..... 10 C. Traditional notions of religious morality are not a valid governmental interest that can justify discrimination in their name. .... 12 D. DOMA lacks a legitimate secular purpose in violation of the Establishment Clause. ... 20 i II. STRIKING DOWN THIS DISCRIMINATORY LAW DOES NOT IN ANY WAY IMPAIR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY .......................................... 22 CONCLUSION ............................................................ 30 IDENTIFICATION OF AMICI CURIAE ............. App. 1 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) .. 18 Bethel School Dis. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) .................................................................... 18 Board of Directors of Rotary Intern. v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537 (1987) ................................. 27 Bob Jones University v. U.S., 461 U.S. 574 (1983)... ............................................................................... 27 Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) ..................... 6 Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) ......... 15, 16 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000). ......................................................................... 28, 29 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). .......................... 6 Christian Legal Soc'y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal. v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010).......................... 29 Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) ............................... 24 City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000) ....... 18 City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986) .................................................................... 17 Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) .................. 18 County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989). .............................................................................. .21 iii Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) ........................ 10 Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86 (1890) ............ 19 Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890) ...................... 19 Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541 (1948) .......................... 19 Everson v. Bd. of Ed. of Ewing Twp., 330 U.S. 1 (1947). ................................................................... 21 Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) ........... 7 Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562 (1906) ................ 9 Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) ........................... 10 Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012). ............... 25 Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557 (1995) .......... 28 Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). 10, 15, 16, 17 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). .............. 21 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). ................... 5, 9 McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) .......... 22 Miss. Univ. Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982).. ............................................................................... 12 New York State Club Ass’n, Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1 (1988) .................................................. 27 Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455 (1973) ............. 30 iv Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973) .............................................................................. .18 Phalen v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 49 U.S. 163 (1850) .................................................................... 19 Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). ........................ 7, 8 Posadas de Puerto Rice Associates v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328 (1986) ......................... 19 Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984). ................................................................... 27 Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). ............... 17, 26 Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006) ..................... 28, 29 Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) .................... 6 Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) ............. 10 U.S. Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973). ......................................................................... 16, 20 U.S. v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982). ............................. 25 Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009) .. 6, 20 West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) ...................................................................... 5 Windsor v. U.S., 699 F. 3d 169 (2nd Cir. 2012) ...... 8, 9 Young v. Am. Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976) ............................................................................... 17 v Other Authorities Mason I. Lowance, A House Divided: The Antebellum Slavery Debates in America, 1776-1865, 60 (2003). ............................................................................... 14 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV, § 1. .................................... 6 42 U.SC. 2000a. ........................................................ 26 vi INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE 1 This amici curiae brief in support of the Respondents is being filed on behalf of the American Humanist Association (“AHA”) and American Atheists, Inc., the American Ethical Union, the Center for Inquiry, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, the Secular Coalition for America, the Secular Student Alliance and the Society for Humanistic Judaism. Amici comprise a diverse array of secular and humanist organizations that advocate on behalf of the separation of church and state and equality rights and offer a unique viewpoint concerning the history of civil liberties and rights in the United States of America. AHA has a long history of supporting equal rights for gays and lesbians. It remains committed to advancing equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their families. AHA’s LGBT Humanist Council seeks to improve the lives of LGBT individuals through education, public service and outreach, and serves as a resource for its members, the greater freethought community and the public on LGBT issues. Humanists celebrate the happiness brought into the lives of LGBT couples by 1 Amici file this brief with the consent of all parties. Consents of the parties are on file with the Clerk of the Court. No counsel for any party in this case authored in whole or in part this brief. No person or entity, other than amici, their members or their counsel made a monetary contribution for the preparation or submission of this brief. The amici have no parent corporations, and no publicly held companies own 10% or more of their stock. 1 their love for each other, and reject discrimination against gays and lesbians because it finds no basis in reason. This case concerns core humanist and atheist interests regarding the equal, fair and just application of our laws to all of citizens and the separation of church and state. 2 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This is not simply a case about gay rights. It is a case about human rights, which find their compelling moral imperative in a consideration of our common humanity. Empathy for our fellow man and woman, grounded in the recognition that each of us could be him or her, is the force that compels the just among us to insist on upholding the ideal of legal equality for all. Nor is this case, properly considered, merely about the civil institution of marriage, the right to build a committed and stable life with the one you love on the same legal basis as any other human being. The denial of any civil right on the basis of traits that make up the core identity of another human, absent a compelling justification, violates